Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mohanrao Anandrao Munde and Dharmaraj Dattatraya Sawant, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the election programme of the Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugar factory. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Sugar, the Collector of Beed, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ambajogai (appointed as Returning Officer), and the Tahasildar of Dharur (appointed as Assistant Returning Officer). The petitioners sought to quash the election notification and the election programme, alleging irregularities. The court examined the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the settled legal position that once the election process has commenced, it should not be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 144 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which provides for filing a dispute before the Cooperative Court. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory remedy. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the appropriate forum under the Act.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Election Process - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Challenge to Election Programme - The petitioners challenged the election programme of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. after the issuance of notification. The court held that once the election process has commenced, the same cannot be interfered with by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 144 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, to raise their grievances before the Cooperative Court. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Existence of Statutory Remedy - The court observed that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute. The petitioners failed to show any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the election programme of a cooperative sugar factory is maintainable after the issuance of election notification and in the presence of an alternative remedy under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the alternative remedy under Section 144 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Law Points
- Election process of cooperative societies
- Alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- Challenge to election programme after notification
